In the United States Supreme Court case of United Lines Telegraph Company v. Boston Safe Deposit and Trust Company, 1892, the court was tasked with determining whether a telegraph company could be held liable for mistakes in transmitting messages that led to financial loss. The plaintiff, Boston Safe Deposit and Trust Company, had sent a message via United Lines Telegraph instructing another party to sell certain stocks; however due to an error in transmission by the telegraph company, this instruction was not correctly communicated resulting in significant financial losses for the plaintiff. The defendant argued they were not responsible as their terms of service included a disclaimer against liability for errors unless repeated back at cost. However, it emerged that these terms were printed on paid receipt slips which customers only received after sending their messages - thus they couldn't have agreed prior to transmission. Therefore,the Supreme Court ruled in favor of Boston Safe Deposit and Trust Co., stating that such disclaimers must be made known before acceptance of contract (i.e., before transmission), thereby holding United Lines Telegraph accountable for its mistake.

In the dissenting opinion for United Lines Telegraph Company v. Boston Safe Deposit and Trust Company, it was argued that the majority's decision to hold a telegraph company liable for damages due to errors in transmission or delivery of an unrepeated message is unjustified. The dissent emphasized that customers who choose cheaper, unrepeated messages are aware of their inherent risks compared to repeated messages which are more expensive but less prone to error. It was also pointed out that this ruling could potentially lead telegraph companies into bankruptcy as they would be forced to bear heavy financial burdens from lawsuits arising from mistakes in transmitting or delivering non-repeated messages. Furthermore, it was contended that such a precedent might discourage technological advancements within the industry by making companies overly cautious about potential legal repercussions.